Mike Yon Emails

Votes so far: 2 -- Kill them; 0 -- Pack up and leave

I agree with Micheal Yon.

Totally and without reservation.

Damned straight, Michael. Every day wasted is just another mile down precisely the wrong road. And we've gone quite far enough along that one already.

Backing down on Sadr in 2004 was a huge mistake. He had already shown that any political deal with him was tenuous at best, he had given us some indication that he: a) was willing to stab us in the back when the jihadis rose up; or b) coordinated with the Falluja jihadis to cause trouble at the same time.

We bent then for Sistani and now, Sistani is marginalized for our purposes and Sadr has shown that the secular Iraqi government is to him only a vector to take over sections of the government including its armed wings (i.e. the interior ministry police).

Kill him and kill'em dead. The short term 'up-rising' would be short term and chaotic, as opposed to organized. It would free Maliki in his ability to operate.

It's ironic that SCIRI has turned out to be a better partner.

I was gobsmacked when we left Sadr above-ground three years ago. He is obviously a sock-puppet thug of Iran and a destabilizing force in Iraq. There will be no peace with him drawing breath there. He and his lieutenants must be liquidated and the militia dispersed. If we can't do what is needed to achieve victory, yes, we should leave.

Who are the Shiite militias killing? Are they innocent Sunnis, or are the militias acting on somewhat reliable intelligence that these are terrorists responsible for attacks on civilians?

I know there's violent intimidation dircted against Sunnis families aimed at "cleansing." But among the military aged males who are found dead in groups, do Shiite death squads have good reason to believe they are part of the terrorist insurgence plaguing their people? Or is it mindless, misdirected restribution?

I second the question posed by edhesq. That's a piece of information I think it's unlikely anyone knows with any kind of certainty though.

Newsflash folks. We're trying to restore order and last time I checked vengeance killing is not a solid sign of rule of law. So even if they are, it is against the rule of law and must not be tolerated. And if they don't want to play ball, kill them. They will most certainly understand that, at least right up until the point their head leaves the rest of their body. Sadr should have been dead years ago, but his punk ass day is coming.

Kill them and then get out, or at least fall back to secure the borders with Iran and Syria. Say we've cleaned out Baghdad one last time, and now, it's your city to run.
Just make sure al-Sadr is really dead before we leave.

Shorter Mike Yon: the only thing we're doing wrong is that we're not slaughtering enough darkies.

M.A.: Only in your twisted mind.

Nice troll.

Woohoo! Congratulations. This post is linked over at The Corner Online.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTExMjBkOWQwMjhmYmIwN2ZjMzk3OWQ2MWIzODkzMGM=

BTW, I vote with Yon.

He's killed enough of ours, I'm in the kill *him* category.

He's killed enough of ours, I'm in the kill *him* category.

That doesn't make any sense.

I think we've been making the same mistake in Iraq as we made in Kosovo, GW1, Mogadishu, Lebanon, and Vietnam. We bend over backwards trying not inflict casualties on civilians and infrastructure and thus miss destroying the enemy.

Politicians have to realize that war is a nasty business full of killing and atrocities. The only way to avoid it is to not to fight the war.

What this means though, is that if you're going to fight a war, then fight the damn war full out. Obliterate the enemy with maximum force. Else, you have a wasted trip and pointless casualties that drag on for years.

All the causalties have been taken since the Military went off a war footing and into garrison and policing three years ago. Most of these useless causalties have been sitting ducks. My relative is back from his two tours and is disgusted. Either finish the war or get the hell out.

Jack Burton: I wasn't suggesting we let the Sadrists run free. Merely that if they are killing insurgents, and not randomly targeting Sunnis, then the information stream on who's who among the Sunnis is out there and we should be finding out how they're sourcing this stuff and piggyback it. If the MA is getting good intel we should figure out how.

That's also why I don't think anyone really knows for sure who these guys are killing. If we did we'd be there ahead of them.

I can put my two cents in here. From my experience there, the Shi'ia death squads merely target Sunnis... that's it. It is also largely done through the Iraqi police, who are more or less police by day and Mahdi by night.

While there, I knew of an incident in which an IP squad murdered a young man execution-style and then tried to lie to the SPiT team to cover it up.

This same SPiT team was hit by an EFP on another occasion and two members were killed, including one who had been quite a vocal critic of the IP unit they were supporting. A close friend of mine on that team firmly believed that the IP had set them up and targeted that one soldier for killing.

I personally witnessed an IP unit set fire to a Sunni village in which they claimed "terrorists" were hiding. My unit went through there... nothing except civilians and their burning homes.

Much as everyone may like, wholesale unrestricted warfare is not the solution. Yes, we'll smash cities and kill lots of people, but we'll still lose there. It's not how you conduct a counterinsurgency. You must win the information war and win the people to your side. This is something we've completely ignored and it is costing us dearly.

We got to this point through a series of miscalculations, gross mistakes, and a complete ignorance of history, Arab culture, and the facts on the ground.

The Shi'ia are just as bad as the Sunnis, quite possibly worse because of their affinity for Iran. Make no mistake, Shi'ia ARABS are not "lapdogs" (Arabs and Persians have bad blood that can sometimes supercede their common brand of Islam) to the Iranians, but they will be sympathetic to them and vice versa.

I think, looking back, we made a mistake isolating Saddam following Desert Storm. We should have recognized his usefullness as a bulwark against Iran, made nice with him, and kept him in place to keep Iran in check.

We now have set in place a very dangerous situation in which Iran is likely to profit.

"He is obviously a sock-puppet thug of Iran and a destabilizing force in Iraq. "

Got your sock puppet right here

al-hakim is linked tribally with the Iranians, he took their side against Iraq in the the 80's - and y'all bought it when the WH trotted him out as a "moderate Shia leader"

Sadr is a Nationalist, and can now do whatever he wants, when he wants, including waiting out your shiny new surge

are you really cheering on the idea of sending what, 10,000 troops in to Sadr City with a population of two million ?!?!- imagine door to door in Brooklyn where everyone is armed with an AK

is it just a case of no Military History for Dummies at Goucher ?

and if you really "'vote' to kill them" -

1-800-Go Army

Jeez, they're just never gonna give up with this chickenhawk crap, are they?

Okay, Izzy, I promise never to say another word about the war if you promise never to say a word about, say, public schools, until you have kids in 'em. In fact, I'll happily agree to let actual soldiers make all decisions about waging war if you'll do the same. I guarantee I'll be a lot happier with the resultant policy than you will.

I vote to get rid of em. They use our soldiers for target practice now, and I'm tired of worrying whether I'll be fodder for some lunatic bomber back here at home. These people are fanatics, it seems they only understand force - look at all the opportunities for the past 50 years to reason with these people and instead their hatred just keeps festering. The democrats in Congress and/or the White House are useless - just look at their role in the Vietnam War - they cut off the funding for the Persian Gulf War and Saddam went wild - then we got 9/11. I'm not sure what else it will take to wake people up? I'm not willing to take anymore chances, however, and to me Iraq is a strategic calculation - we had to strike somewhere and change that political landscape. And even though the democrats need us to fail in order for them to succeed politically, our military is brilliant in this deadly, middle eastern "chess game" and I support their efforts regardless of all the hot air on Capitol Hill.

So Sadr is the new Saddam-I thought capturing and killing Saddam was supposed to bring peace. Not. But now-if we just kill Sadr, peace will come.

Saddam killed Sadr's father. Did that help Saddam solve the problem? No-it just helped Saddam keep a lid on the tension through ruthless brutality.

You want to "kill," scare, and brutalize the Shia into submission?

Saddam was already doing that at a far cheaper cost to us.
Saddam was already doing that quite well

Okay, Izzy, I promise never to say another word about the war if you promise never to say a word about, say, public schools, until you have kids in 'em.

The more accurate response would be "until you're a teacher". The "only soldiers can declare war" meme is akin to saying only teachers can decide public education policy, only civil engineers can decide transportation policy, only police can make laws, etc, etc. It's a ridiculous notion, but so are most things cooked up by moonbats.

I stand corrected, Brett. That ridiculous notion, as you so aptly put it, is certainly of a piece with certain other liberal shibboleths, though; like, for example, the idea that only a black politician can adequately represent a majority-black constituency.

It's a foolish consistency, but at least they're consistent, eh?

a

I do not subscribe to "only soldiers can make military policy". However, I do believe those who cheer the war from the sidelines when they are perfectly fit and capable to fight themselves come up a little short in my book. With a dead friend in Iraq and being a reservist, I couldn't look myself in the mirror until I had gone over myself.

The military is in dire need for people right now... dire need. Active military are sent two or three times to Afghanistan and Iraq, then involuntarily extended when their ETS's roll around. Reservists are sent several times, sacrificing their civilian careers (I'm an example of that... although I had both basic AND advanced investigator's school, a strong record, and unpaid time I spent with the violent crimes squad, I was passed over TWICE for detective). Soldiers who were in the IRR are being recalled in numbers not seen since WW2.

Yet those who support the war refuse to serve themselves. Family... career... all good reasons I'm sure.

Hey, it's a volunteer Army.

Getting back to the counter-insurgency mission, hands up anybody who has read both "Empires of the Sand" by Efraim Karsh and John Nagls "Counterinsurgency lessons from Malaya"? Do you guys remember why the US and the UK beat Germany in WWII? Better intelligence, mostly. And learning while doing. Learning quickly is always good.

Martin: Nobody wants to kill, scare, and brutalize the Shia into submission. Sadr is a lawbreaker and a murderer. He is undermining a democratically elected government from within and without. He is ordering the random murder of thousands of people a month.

He wants to be the new Saddam. And that is precisely why he must be thwarted and if necessary killed. No more Saddams. It doesn't work.

izzatxeaux buys the Sadrist propoganda that all two million people who live in Sadr city support rule by the warlord's fiat. Everyone in Brooklyn is welcome to own an AK as far as I'm concerned, so long as they use it for self defense against murderous gangs and not against the cops or military. Sadr doesn't enjoy the kind of popular support he says he does. If he did he wouldn't need the murderous militia and wouldn't have to employ kidnap gangs and extortionists to fund them. He could simply use his massive popular support to move the parliamentarians. But he can't. Because he's nothing more than a blood soaked mini Saddam. Yon is right, take him out and you remove the gun from the heads of many who want peace. Sadr is the Shiites Al-Qaeda. Drive a wedge between him and his militia or let him keep his army and put the wedge between him and the Shia tribes and then eliminate him and the Mahdi Army. It'll be a two and a half week rout. Just like it was before. As long as we don't let him get to Najaf where Sistani might protect him.

I do not subscribe to "only soldiers can make military policy". However, I do believe those who cheer the war from the sidelines when they are perfectly fit and capable to fight themselves come up a little short in my book.

Seems rather unreasonable to me. The simple fact is that the entire nature of a specialist based economy is that everyone agrees to perform some specilized task for the rest of society as a whole. Now, you happen to be in the business of a task in which you have very little choice in the when and where (for which you have my thanks). I'll grant you that it's gotta kind of suck, but at the same time you should have thought of that going in. Sorry if that seems rude, but it's the truth.

We can't all be Soldiers, or Police, or Fire Fighters. Even if we wanted to, the military wouldn't know what to do with us. You're talking tens of millions of people. The cost to feed and house that many troops has got to be astronomical. Plus can you imagine the disruption to our economy?

So, sorry if I sound ungrateful or anything, but I can't buy your position. I find it "unreasonable".

Whoops, above comment from me.

Not unreasonable. I have decided to commit to a career in the military. Many do not. Many do a four-year tour and leave. Several friends of mine left civilian life to serve after 9-11 and have since left the military and are continuing their civilian lives.

The leadership of the country will have America believe we are facing the biggest threat to this country since Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo. Yet it's "business as usual" for the American population (save the military... to include their dependents). The civilian populace make almost zero sacrifice for the war, much unlike the last time we faced a serious threat to America.

I know it would disrupt normal life. So did the mass of men who volunteered to fight in WW2. So, if this crisis is as serious as we say it is, where are all those who are willing to fight it?

And yes, we (the military) could use the help.

And the consensus is that Iraq is either lost, or winnable...depending on your ideological slant.

Ah... The perfect shade of Politically Correct Gray.

This is not a slam on Mike Yon, or OPFOR. Just reflecting on what this phrase articulates.

Joel are you going active? I thought you were guard?

If we are losing in Iraq, we are losing for two reasons.

1. We are trying to impose an “Ideological” Western Culture solution on a “Real” Middle-Eastern Cultural problem.

2. We are trying to impose a secular democracy on a culture that does not want any kind of a secular government.

The only way we have any chance of enforcing anything in the Middle East is through force of arms. Primarily because Middle-Eastern and/or Muslim cultures only respect the ideas of those who are willing to fight and die for those ideas,

The only reason President Bush has had any success with his Iraq War policy is because he (and our brave volunteer military) is will to fight for his ideas. Likewise, even though our Islamo-Fascist enemies hate us, they at least respect this. It is our singular strength, and their only real weakness.

John, yes I'm going active. I was Guard, went Reserve. I've been deployed twice since the war started. Passed over twice for detective in my civilian job. Was told on the down-low it's because I'm still in the Reserves. So, f-- 'em. I'm going to do what I should have done eons ago... go active and get my commission.

Lawrence, both #1 and #2 were the stated goals of this entire adventure in Iraq. You state precisely why it was doomed to failure from the beginning.

So we use force. Great. Bomb 'em back to the Stone Age. We certainly have that capability. What next then? A decades-long occupation at a rate of casualties that the American public is unwilling to sustain? And to possess an oil supply that is constantly under harassment attacks and sabotage? Not worth it.

The Arabs don't respect the ideas of those willing to fight for their ideas. They simply respect force. If you drop chemical weapons on their towns and slaughter civilians wholesale, history has shown that you'll get their respect... quickly. You won't get them to buy off on your ideas... but you will have their respect.

Joel,

I illustrating the axiom that one must properly define the problem before one can actually solve it.

We can argue for a lifetime the wisdom and benefits of first invading Iraq, but that is academic now. Now that we are fully engaged in war we must focus on what will win in this scenario. Either than, or we are focusing on what will lose it.

Our military is winning virtually every combat engagement. Our state department negotiators are virtually losing every engagement. Seemingly, anyway.

But to say this is lost is not correct either. We have any number of Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Libya that are effectively on our side in this. Not to mention the smaller states such as Kuwait, UAE, Dubai, etc, that are very pro-Western because of our military support and investment capital.

My argument is that President Bush is exactly right in showing a strong military arm, while also encouraging economic development. I think we could to a much better job, but I also believe that President Bush’s objectives are based on the proper base concepts necessary for success in this conflict.

Saddam had to go. We helped create that Frankenstein Monster and we had to take him down. Now we have a responsibility to the average Iraqi to not give up in helping them stabilize and rebuild.

If we fail in this our status as the world superpower becomes irrelevant.

Second point:

As long as we are focused on stabilizing Iraq and helping them rebuild, we have a good chance of success.

If we continue to try and impose Western solutions on an Eastern culture, we're going to have "difficulties".

My opinion is stolen from the
Best two writters on the war:

Retired Army COL Bartos
http://www.mangoparchia.blogspot.com/

and former Marine Fred Reed:
www.FredonEverything.net

I would contend the opinion that our military is winning every engagement. I know I'm going to be called on semantics here, but you have to define "engagement" and "winning".

If "engagement" is defined as one of our units being engaged by one of theirs, then I would say the vast majority of "engagements" involve a detonation of an IED/EFP/VBIED against one of our patrols or convoys with the rare occasion that our forces have something to actually shoot back at.

If "winning" is defined as the quantitative end result of that engagement, then I say we're losing. Even if a vehicle is damaged and nobody is killed, the economy of force is in the insurgents' favor. A $500 bomb has caused thousands, possible tens of thousands, of dollars of damage. If one or two of our soldiers are killed or wounded, then the price goes up even further (and I'm not talking in dollar value either).

The sad fact of the matter is that it is rare that the insurgents will stand up and fight. I can say that I saw "combat" in Iraq... only fired my weapon once... at a dog that tried to attack me one night. But I was under sniper fire and had IED's detonated on patrols that I was in. Never once did I see an "insurgent". That is the nature of insurgencies... an enemy you rarely see that strikes and then disappears.

Fallujah, Ramadi, Najaf, Haifa Street, etc. are abberations... moments of sheer stupidity on the insurgents' part that allows us to fight in a manner which favors us... where we can bring massive amounts of firepower to bear.

I also wouldn't say we're losing in the diplomacy front, pretty much because we're not even trying. The policy of not even talking with Iran and Syria is a mistake. I'm not saying we have to make nice with them... but we should at least be talking... even if it's laced with threats and such.

Where we're REALLY getting our asses handed to us is in the Information War. PSYOP units are forbidden from engaging the real key leaders in the Arab society... the Imams. They can get paid off by the Mahdi or whoever to spew anti-American rhetoric, yet some brilliant general somewhere has the impression that merely engaging an Imam is a form of proseletyzing and therefore verboten. Hence only one message gets out. It's ridiculous.

units are forbidden from engaging the real key leaders in the Arab society... the Imams.

Exactly, Joel. Maliki and the elected Parliament are not the key leaders in Muslim society. The Imams are.

As far as winning and losing. The death of a soldier, or the destruction of a piece of equipment does not mean an engagement is lost. However, in context of your definition I withdraw my use of the word engagement. There is probably a better word for what I'm trying to say, but it's not jumping off my tough right now.

As far as diplomacy, we are talking to Iran and Syria. But maybe you mean we are ineffectively talking "at" each other, rather than effectively "with" each other. But I also don't see this changing anytime soon.

I do not argue that a soldier lost or a piece of equipment destroyed constitutes a loss. However, when it is in the absence of ANY enemy casualties and nothing is tactically accomplished, then yes, it's a loss.

Routine patrols being hit with IED's are, in my estimation, a defeat... militarily, economically, and (for lack of a better word) informationally. As I've pointed out before, a relatively inexpensive bomb has destroyed a HMMWV (or worse) and soldiers are injured or killed. That is a military victory, albeit a small one, for the insurgency. Economically speaking... same thing. Informationally, one more chink is placed in the aura of invincibility that is the American military machine (though I think this was a moot point long ago) and the event will likely make YouTube or the news, thereby continuing to attack already poor morale at home and to embolden the enemies of our country.

I believe many of the tactics employed, while sometimes creative, are not nearly ruthless enough nor effective enough to deter IED threats. I believe that they have been on the increase ever since the war began with no let-up. While we create more heavily-armored vehicles, we do NOT address sending hunter-killer teams out to draw enemy blood. That is necessary both for the morale of our soldiers and necessary as a deterrent to IED emplacement teams.

The thing is, the IEDs have not detered our overall military activities. This is a win for us.

They do get a lot of negative MSM press here, though. And, overall, that is a win for them.

Of course Michael is right. You are very wise to post his information. His dispatches are far richer than anything written previously by a journalist covering men and war. Michael Herr did a fairly nice job in Viet Nam, but his fatal flaw was that he had no true military background and consequently missed a few major points. For example, the soldier who said "I hope you die" instead of "Good Luck." Herr thought it was because he had chosen to be there. It was not. Having been in that soldier's boots, I can tell you the frustration was not that Herr chose to be there, but that he could, and did, choose to leave, leaving the soldier and his buddies' fate in the hands and whims of the Mission. Not to take anything away from Herr, But Mike Yon is the real deal. God bless him.

As far as killing the bad guys in Iraq, don't make the same mistake forced on the Israeli Defense Forces by a bunch of inept, incompetent, impotant, and self-important politicians. Hizbollah should have been crushed and would have been had they followed the plan the IDF had practiced just weeks earlier. Instead they did everything wrong, and every step of the way cost soldiers lives by their political machinations. Do not make the same mistakes with the same enemy, for this SOB and Hezbollah are one and the same. As Michael has said elsewhere, the best defense is a dead enemy.